KILIFI, Kenya – Kilifi County, renowned for its pristine white sandy beaches and vibrant marine life, has long been one of Kenya’s premier tourist destinations.
With hotels and beach bars dotting its 165-mile coastline, the area thrives on tourism and fishing, offering activities such as boating, snorkeling around coral reefs, and bird watching in dense mangrove forests.
However, this serene paradise faces a contentious transformation as plans for Kenya’s first nuclear power plant move forward.
The proposal to build a nuclear plant in Kilifi has ignited fierce opposition. Over a dozen conservation and rights groups regularly gather at Mida Creek, a swampy bayou celebrated for its birdlife and mangrove forests, to discuss their concerns.
Phyllis Omido, an award-winning environmentalist leading the protests, voices the community’s resistance with the Swahili slogan “Kana nuclear!” meaning “reject nuclear.”
The Kenya Anti-Nuclear Alliance argues that the plant will deepen Kenya’s debt and calls for greater public awareness of the costs involved.
Construction is slated to begin in 2027, with the plant expected to be operational by 2034.
A lawsuit filed in July 2023 by lawyers Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti on behalf of Kilifi residents seeks to halt the project, claiming the process has been “rushed” and “illegal,” with inadequate public participation.
The Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Nupea) maintains that construction won’t start for years and insists that legal frameworks and public engagement are in place.
Nonetheless, a petition filed in November by the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA) further underscores the community’s concerns about health, environmental risks, and tourism impacts in the event of a nuclear spill.
Local environmentalists and residents fear significant damage to Kilifi’s delicate ecosystems.
Marine scientist Peter Musila warns that the plant’s cooling system could disrupt the Watamu Marine National Reserve’s thriving coral reefs by returning warmer water to the ocean, potentially harming fish and essential microorganisms.
Tour operator Justin Kenga echoes these fears, stating that any environmental destruction would devastate the tourism industry, which heavily depends on the area’s biodiversity.
A British property owner in Watamu, speaking anonymously, expresses similar concerns, noting that a nuclear plant could lead to a decline in tourism and property values.
“This is a tourist town. People swim in the ocean, scuba dive, and water ski. The presence of a nuclear power station nearby would certainly instill fear and deter visitors,” he says.
Nupea’s CEO, Justus Wabuyabo, argues that nuclear power is crucial for Kenya’s future energy needs, citing its low-carbon benefits and the country’s industrial ambitions.
Despite Kenya’s heavy reliance on renewable energy, these sources are strained, with solar and wind power being intermittent and hydropower vulnerable to drought.
Government officials believe that nuclear energy could be a “game-changer” in tackling carbon emissions and meeting future energy demands.
As anti-nuclear sentiment grows, tensions between activists and the government are escalating.
The UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, has raised concerns over police violence against protesters in Uyombo, a potential site for the plant.
Despite Nupea’s assurances that Uyombo is intended for a meteorological station, uncertainty and resistance persist.
Nupea’s impact assessment report outlines measures to mitigate environmental harm and ensure social and economic protections for affected communities.
The agency also emphasizes potential benefits, such as job creation and infrastructural development.
However, many locals, including fishing community leader Elisha Bombosho Mzee, remain unconvinced.
“The sea is our livelihood. If the plant is built, fishing will be forbidden, impacting not just us but the entire local economy,” he says.
As Kenya navigates its energy future, the debate over Kilifi’s nuclear plant highlights the delicate balance between development and conservation, with the voices of its residents at the forefront of the discussion.
